Dear Editor,

We are responding to the Kareiva et al article published last month.  We agree with the need to weigh tradeoffs more systematically.  We also agree with the implication of the tradeoffs paradigm that we need more conservation: to maintain ecosystem services, and as control areas to better understand tradeoffs.  However, we also have a number of concerns.

The article cites the Wildlife Conservation Society’s (WCS) Human Footprint analysis as a key source for the contention that “ours is a world of nature domesticated, albeit to varying degrees.” Yet the article does not indicate that this analysis does not include Antarctica, which at approximately 10% of the earth’s surface, would likely increase the WCS’ 17% figure to around 27%. The article also omits Conservation International’s (CI) 2002 assessment, which found that between 38.5% and 46% of the planet qualified as wilderness. The article also mischaracterizes the concept of wilderness, which does not mean completely “pristine” land that has never been impacted by humans, or for that matter, land without any human presence. Rather, the standard for wilderness is biological intactness. Like domestication, “wilderness” is measured in degrees, but under either approach, it is premature to declare our planet domesticated.

The percentage of wilderness protected areas cited is somewhat misleading. Many countries do not use a wilderness classification simply because “wilderness” is difficult to translate. Some countries only establish wilderness zones within parks. The wilderness classification is also recent. The first wilderness law was passed in 1964 (United States) – the first national park (Yellowstone) was established in 1872. Nonetheless, the number of wilderness laws is increasing. In 1990 there were six countries with wilderness laws.  Today there are nine countries, nine more with wilderness policies or zoning mechanisms, and two countries with laws pending (Mexico, Turkey).

Sincerely,